Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

I didn’t make that up.  He said so.

Alabama Sheriffs Association (ASA) director Robert ‘Bobby’ Timmons is standing by his criticism of the Constitutional carry bills set to be debated in the Alabama legislature, even going so far as to say he would support amending the United States Constitution.

Timmons has claimed several times that the Second Amendment was not written to give citizens the right to carry a weapon in a concealed fashion, saying that the amendment was only written to allow citizens to have weapons to defend their homes.

Given his interpretation of the Second Amendment, 1819 News asked Timmons if ASA would support amending the Constitution to limit the Second Amendment to the possession of firearms only for the defense of a person’s home.

“Oh yeah,” Timmons said. “I’d be in favor of that. But, I mean, it would never get passed.”

According to Timmons, the ASA is working with Mom’s Demand Action – which bills itself as a “grassroots movement” that fights for more restrictive gun laws – to fight against Constitutional carry laws that have been introduced into the current session of the Alabama legislature. “Constitutional carry” is a term used to describe legislation that would allow citizens to legally carry handguns without having to purchase a permit from their local Sheriff’s office.

Three bills pre-filed in the Alabama House and Senate would legalize permitless or “Constitutional Carry” in the state. Rep. Andrew Sorell (R) pre-filed House Bill 44 (HB44), along with a coalition of 38 Republicans. The bill would eliminate the need for a person to obtain a concealed carry permit in order to carry a pistol. It would also repeal and revise certain restrictions on the carrying or possession of a firearm in a motor vehicle or on certain property or locations.

Rep. Shane Stringer (R) and Rep. Proncey Robertson (R) pre-filed House Bill 6 (HB6). Sen. Tim Melson filed an identical companion bill in the Senate (SB12). These two bills would also allow for “permitless carry” and would create a process for the return of seized pistols.

All three bills would leave the current concealed carry permitting system in place for Alabamans who want to obtain a license in order to carry concealed in states with CCDW reciprocity with Alabama.

So not only is the Sheriffs association being led by someone who doesn’t believe in the 2A, they are working with a gun control group to kill constitutional carry in Alabama.

It sounds to me like Alabamans have some trash to carry out.  This is on y’all.  You have work to do.  Get it done.  And find out who else in the respective Sheriffs departments supports this guy and his agenda.  Carry out that trash too.

LEOs in Oklahoma may soon have to make a choice on whose side they stand.

An Oklahoma State Senator filed three bills designed to increase the power wielded by Oklahoma sheriffs, including a bill that empowers sheriffs to arrest federal officers who attempt to confiscate guns.

State Senator Nathan Dahm, R-Broken Arrow, filed the bills on Thursday.

“I’ve heard from numerous sheriffs and constituents across this state who are concerned at the consistent ignoring of our Constitution happening by this rogue regime” Dahm said. “The Second Amendment was never solely about hunting unless you’re referring to hunting tyrants. It was about the people being able to protect themselves against a government that would seek to disarm them.”

Senate Bill 1199 allows sheriffs to arrest federal officers who attempt to confiscate guns in Oklahoma.

Senate Bill 1200 requires federal agents and officers to receive permission from the county sheriff before operating in their county.

Senate Bill 1201 expands a sheriff’s ability to form a posse to include prohibiting agents, employees and officers of the federal government from violating the constitutional rights of the people of their county.

“The full totalitarian leftist takeover of a society has always been predicated on confiscation of firearms,” Dahm said. “Thankfully in Oklahoma we have county sheriffs that would never allow that to take place. But we must do everything possible to help them stand up for our rights and this bill further enables them to do that.”

I told you before this was an expanding and growing movement.  This is the strongest manifestation of that movement I’ve seen.

The pink panty crowd in Missouri is complaining about their weaker 2A preservation act.  Very well.  Let them resign.

Maybe there’s hope for Oklahoma.  The goal is for agents of the FedGov to be effectively unable to function.

News from the pink panties crowd.

In affidavits filed in court and in legal briefs filed by nearly 60 police chiefs belonging to either the St. Louis Area Police Chiefs Association or the Missouri Police Chiefs Association, police officials raise questions about Missouri’s new “Second Amendment Preservation Act.”

The chiefs say, “some of the wording and structure of SAPA has inadvertently caused confusion and raised a number of questions that hinder law enforcement’s ability to defend and protect Missouri citizens.”

“Unintended operational consequences.”  They want clarification that they can still eat doughnuts with their bestest buddies and partners in stuff, the FedGov.

Here is the clarification they should get.  “State law now stipulates that you arrest and charge all agents of the FedGov who enforce gun control laws of any kind.”

Suck it up, pink panty boys.  This is an evolution that must occur.  It’s inevitable.  It’s going to happen.  These are just the beginning stages.  Decide which side you’re on.

News from Georgia.

Georgia could introduce a new open-carry gun law thanks to Governor Brian Kemp.

The governor and his wife will hold a meeting with both lawmakers and gun rights advocates in a gun shop on Wednesday. During this meeting, he is expected to announce support for new legislation that could revoke the need for people to have a license to carry a weapon in public. This law would affect both open and concealed guns, according to drafts obtained by the Associated Press.

“Building a safer, stronger Georgia starts with hardworking Georgians having the ability to protect themselves and their families,” wrote Kemp in the obtained draft remarks. “In the face of rising violent crime across the country, law-abiding citizens should have their constitutional rights protected.”

It is unclear whether these remarks will be given during his scheduled address. However, the upcoming conference does come after Republican lawmakers pressured Kemp to readdress his endorsement for constitutional carry during his first campaign for governor.

Nice.

But wait.  Why now?  Does he feel pressure from campaign promises?  More likely, does he feel pressure from allowing vote tallies to spike in the middle of the night in Georgia, thus placing Georgia right up there with the worst of the culprits and illegal thuggery in the last election?

Well, I hope constitutional carry (and open carry) is passed.  I hope the governor suffers a massive and ignominious fall.

Tom Knighton writing at Bearing Arms.

However, there are a couple of other bills that, if they pass, will put them squarely at odds with the federal government.

Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 7 would both create the Alabama Second Amendment Preservation Act. This act would prohibit state law enforcement from enforcing any federal law, or other legislation, regarding the regulation of firearms, firearm accessories or ammo.

The bills would also set up penalties for whatever agency violates the proposed bill. The penalty for a first offense is a class C misdemeanor with a fine no less than $500 or more than $5,000. For all other offenses, it is a class B misdemeanor with a fine no less than $1,000 or more than $7,000.

In other words, it’ll be much like Missouri’s law that went into effect earlier this year.

That law hasn’t really been tested in the courts yet, so we don’t know how that will go, so Alabama following suit may or may not be a great move for them.

However, there’s another bill that may cause far more problems.

A different bill, House Bill 13, would prohibit state law enforcement from enforcing any federal bill or other legislation pertaining to the regulation of firearms, firearm accessories or ammo, just like Senate Bill 2. However, this only pertains to those made and sold in Alabama.

Under existing constitution law, Congress is given the authority to regulate interstate commerce. This bill would provide that firearms, ammo and firearm accessories that are made in the state and are only traded within the state are not subject to federal law or regulation.

Now, on the surface, this looks great for Alabama and I happen to agree with the reasoning behind this bill.

That said, Kansas passed a bill like this a while back. There are now people in prison because they figured the law would protect them, but the courts disagreed.

Alabama is free to pass the bill, of course, but if you live there and think that once it does, you can go out and build yourself a machinegun, well, I have some very bad news for you.

It should be noted that the prosecutions in Kansas have been upheld by the courts, so there’s no reason to believe Alabama residents would have any better luck.

Frankly, this is a bill that probably shouldn’t be passed. Yes, it’s pro-gun and yes, I agree with the reasoning and thinking behind it. However, there are people who will think this gives them license to do things that it really can’t. It’ll hurt good, decent people who simply don’t realize they’re doing anything wrong.

That doesn’t benefit anyone, I’m afraid, so it’s probably for the best if this doesn’t actually get passed.

I think Tom gets this wrong on every account, and this certainly isn’t the first or twentieth time I’ve disagreed with the folks at Bearing Arms, and it won’t be the last.

To begin with, yes Alabama should pass both of these bills and they should be signed by the governor.  First and foremost should be the constitutional carry bill, but if they get this far, they should pass the balance of the pro-2A bills as well.

But then Kansas passed such a law and people are in jail because of it, right?  Well, not so fast.  We covered it.  Kansas passed a 2A sanctuary law and I covered it.  It was more of a nullification law, and had the express purpose of allowing the purchase of NFA items without seeking approval of the controllers inside the beltway.  I said at the time that unless the governor was willing to send state and county police to arrest and imprison FedGov agents who attempted to make arrests in Kansas for said actions, it was weak tea and not really a nullification law.  Even the sponsor of the bill said that it mostly symbolic.

The Alabama bill seems a bit different, focusing on whether agents of the state can participate with FedGov agents in making such arrests.  They are taking incremental steps.  Some state is eventually going to have to broach this issue sooner or later, but until a governor is willing to battle FedGov agents, we’re left with what we’ve got.

I see the last sentence of the paragraph … “This bill would provide that firearms, ammo and firearm accessories that are made in the state and are only traded within the state are not subject to federal law or regulation” … is the tricky part.  I wouldn’t test that part of the bill, if indeed it has that proviso.  As for prohibiting agents of the state from aiding the enforcement of any new federal laws, Alabama can certainly do that, and Missouri has thus far been quite successful thus far in preventing cooperation with the FedGov, which is a good thing.  Finally, if this portends to be a weak nullification law, I see it as possibly targeting FedGov control over things like semi-automatics and AR-15s as anything else.

As for the Missouri law not being tested in court, I seriously doubt that the word of a federal court will stand as the law if the governor of the state makes it clear that the state law will be enforced, and that agents of the state who aid the FedGov will indeed lose their ability to work in law enforcement ever again.

That’s the whole point.  There are certain things a state can do regardless of what a federal court says.  This is one of them.

Alabama should pass both bills, but only after focusing first on a constitutional carry bill.

Florida.

Some top Florida Republican lawmakers have now said they would support constitutional carry legislation in the upcoming session.

The policy would allow all legal gun owners to carry firearms without a concealed weapons license.

The constitutional carry legislation was filed by the Legislature’s most outspoken conservative member, Rep. Anthony Sabatini.

“Our very liberal Republican Speaker Chris Sprowls has gotten tens of thousands of emails from gun groups,” said Sabatini.

The policy is split into two bills.

The first would allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons without a license.

“You don’t have to go ask the government for permission,” said Sabatini.

The second would allow for open carry.

Please tell me that open carry will pass, and that I don’t have to watch any more idiotic police antics with cops showing their ass to everybody when guys open carry while fishing?  Please?

Alabama.

Remember Sheriff Sam Cochran (aka, Boss Hogg) who literally fired Stringer for having different political views?  Yes, that Boss Hogg.

To the folks in Mobile County.  Please tell me you’re going to find a way to get rid of that tyrannical goober you have for Sheriff.  Please?

News from Montana.

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte is stepping forward to protect the residents of his state from the Biden administration’s assault on the Second Amendment.

On Friday, the Republican signed into law House Bill 258. It will prohibit state and local law enforcement officials from enforcing any federal ban or regulation on firearms, magazines and ammunition. It also prohibits the use of state funds to impose federal bans and regulations of these items.

“Today, I proudly signed Rep. Hinkle’s law prohibiting federal overreach into our Second Amendment-protected rights, including any federal ban on firearms,” Gianforte wrote in a Twitter post. “I will always protect our #2A right to keep and bear arms.”

[ … ]

On Friday, The Associated Press reported that Montana’s legislature has tried to pass similar legislation three times in the last eight years – in 2013, 2015 and 2017. Each bill, however, was vetoed by the state’s former Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock.

In early April, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed a comparable bill called the “Second Amendment Firearm Freedom Act,” into law.

Arizona, Missouri, Montana, and possibly New Hampshire (if the law passes), have all taken such action.  This is becoming a good touchstone for who deserves your support in your own state.  If they won’t pledge to sign a similar bill, tell them you’ll campaign for their opponent.

BBC.

Ah, we’re to the crux of the matter, yes?  So let’s help explain this to the article author and the Fordham professor.

As we observed earlier,

Briefly, I couldn’t care less what English common law says about anything.  The colonists fought a war over many things, including gun control (see Kopel, “How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution“).

The colonists fought a war against the government to overthrow tyranny.  It’s ridiculous and sophomoric to pretend that they ever assumed that men wouldn’t engage in RKBA, or that they wouldn’t turn those guns against tyranny.

Presuppositions.  This is the stuff of life.  The 2A makes no sense unless seen in the light of the lives of the men who wrote it and their own assumptions, value judgments and world and life views.

Any lawyer who begins with, discusses or ends with English common law isn’t worth his weight in salt.

But you see, most lawyers aren’t worth their weight in salt, or they are tipping their hat to the ruling elite inside the beltway.  As for the judges and justices, look at just how badly they got it wrong.  Consider Scalia’s own words, and after reading them again, don’t ever again laud the ridiculous Heller decision or Scalia as it pertains to rights.

The professor from Fordham is correct in that “England was a super hierarchical society, and one in which the King has a monopoly of force and violence.”  Not only was Scalia wrong in this sentiment or analysis, he founds the RKBA solely in English common law after the founders waged a war against England, with that war precipitated by the very thing under debate, i.e., gun control.

It does indeed boggle the mind.  But not really so much when one considers that the Heller decision was all about making the RKBA semi-palatable for the nobility inside the beltway.

Heller offers a Second Amendment cleaned up so that it can safely be brought into the homes of affluent Washington suburbanites who would never dream of resistance-they have too much sunk into the system–but who might own a gun to protect themselves from the private dangers that, they believe, stalk around their doors at night. Scalia commonly touts his own judicial courage, his willingness to read the Constitution as it stands and let the chips fall where they may. But Heller is noteworthy for its cowardice.

We must keep the chattering class and the wine and cheese crowd happy at all costs.

The secret that the Fordham professor and the author of this piece doesn’t understand is that most Americans see the 2A as a covenant, not a source of rights.  Most gun owners see their RKBA as given by God, not bestowed by the state.

Arguing the way these lawyers have, and judging the way even Scalia did, is not representative of America.  So the professor is utterly wrong when he says “Obviously, that doesn’t include many people in the gun rights community …”

Oh my.  He may correctly observe that of the legal community who is hell bent on pleasing their masters, but neither the author nor the professor are very much in touch with gun blogs, gun web sites, discussion threads (like reddit/Firearms or AR15.com), or even perhaps just knowing gun owners throughout flyover country.  We must be careful to distinguish between those who believe that we need the king’s permission to hunt the royal forests (because he owns the land), and we need the constable’s permission to carry a weapon (because he owns the roads), versus those who see such demands as a breakage of covenant leading to divorce.  We’ve been through divorce before, and it’s ugly.

What God grants cannot be removed by man, for it is as immutable as His nature.  This belief is hard wired into the American soul.  If the “nobility” presses this too far, these are lessons they may [re]learn the hardest of ways.

This comes courtesy of TTAG.

After listening to all of this, I think most of it is right.  Roberts will seek to do the thing that pisses off the fewest people, Kavanaugh seems to be solid on this, and Barrett might be the one who makes or breaks this.

Roberts and Barrett seem to be most concerned about “sensitive” places, and will likely try to circumscribe the RKBA that way.  They seem to be attempting to let just a little liberty seep out without angering the nobility ensconced inside the beltway.

Retarded.

When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments Wednesday in a closely watched guns case, the discussion won’t start with the last landmark ruling on firearms from 2010, or even with the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791.

Instead, attorneys on both sides will likely reach back to a 700-year-old English law – and a debate over the influence it had on the framing of the Constitution.

[ … ]

That has drawn both sides of the case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, into an intense battle over a statute from 1328 that some historians say informed the Framers’ views of when people may carry their guns in public. The Statute of Northampton regulated the carrying of “arms” in public places.

Briefly, I couldn’t care less what English common law says about anything.  The colonists fought a war over many things, including gun control (see Kopel, “How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution“).

The colonists fought a war against the government to overthrow tyranny.  It’s ridiculous and sophomoric to pretend that they ever assumed that men wouldn’t engage in RKBA, or that they wouldn’t turn those guns against tyranny.

Presuppositions.  This is the stuff of life.  The 2A makes no sense unless seen in the light of the lives of the men who wrote it and their own assumptions, value judgments and world and life views.

Any lawyer who begins with, discusses or ends with English common law isn’t worth his weight in salt.